September 19, 2021 Comment off


READ THE DISCUSSIONS and EXPAND ON THE DEBATE DO NOT COPY THE PARAGRAPHS INTO YOUR REBUTTALS. Each part must be separate from the other. Use a reference for each part. IMPORTANT: PART 1 AND PART 2 USED THE BELOW Tort Category the Private Security Industry is Likely to Come in Contact With AS THEIR BASIS FOR THEIR DISCUSSION PART 3 USED THE ARTICLE LISTED IN THEIR REFERRENCE. Tort Category the Private Security Industry is Likely to Come in Contact With The private security industry is prone to various tortious actions by private citizens because of their duty of conducting security duties in various settings in the communities. A among the key duties of private security personnel involves regulating entry into premises and this may require inspection on the body of a person or even luggage carried. Not everyone will understand the duty of a private security personnel and therefore scuffles may arise, making the private security industry be prone to tortious claims such as assault and battery. Assault is an intentional tort whereby an individual commits an act that creates a state of fear or makes an individual apprehend danger (Nemeth 2017, 147). For security guards, it is more common for such apprehension of imminent harm or danger to occur whenever there is a misunderstanding between a security guard and an individual in the cause of duty, which could lead to a claim under the law of tort. Further, the tort of battery which also constitutes an intentional tort relates to the act of inflicting unconsented contact on an individual, bringing about harm to the individual (Nemeth 2017, 149). This is likely to occur more frequently with private security guards in their attempts to bring order in their places of work or even to arrest rogue individuals, they may overstep their mandate and bring about harm through unconsented physical contact to such individuals; as the case involving Mr. Nicholas Dimauro illustrates. A tort worth mentioning is that of false imprisonment; whereby individuals are likely to sue based on the thinking that the acts of private security guards to detail them is malicious and unwarranted action (Nemeth 2017, 149). PART 1: Jerren Just to add, the tort category that is mostly involved with the private security industry is the intentional tort category. This is because, private security industry involves wrongs that are committed by one individual against another, intentionally, such as assault, false imprisonment, battery and conversion which are the main types of intentional torts. Unlike other torts which are based on carelessness or negligence, intentional tort category includes wrongs that are committed on purpose such as false imprisonment, false arrest among others. PART 2: Zachary Intentional torts may be the most common, but negligent torts are also on the rise. A lot of time, individuals look for ways to catch security guards, as well as police, doing something wrong just to sue. Civil cases require a lot of time and a lot of money. Therefore, someone may fake a burglary and then accuse the guard of false imprisonment. Although probable cause is meant to defend the guard, there must be a valid amount to justify the actions. PART 3: Sherman article In an article written by Ken Lemon and Glen Counts writes about a security guard trying to stop a bank robbery. The report gives details on how the security guard stood his ground against the heist attempt. Reports say the guard fired 16 shots at the suspects but was “unable to hit anything”. The robbers got away and authorities are investigating the incident. In the article there is a point made that security guard have a low standard of training compared to law enforcement. Since the guard fired 16 shots and “unable to hit anything” does that strengthen the an argument for more training. In all fairness, the conditions of the situation for the guard is unknown and it is possible the guard did not want to hurt anyone, but fired shots as a defensive tactic against armed men.